London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Air Quality Annual Status Report for 2018 Date of publication: 1st July 2019

This report provides a detailed overview of air quality in the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames during 2018. It has been produced to meet the requirements of the London Local Air Quality Management statutory process1.

1 LLAQM Policy and Technical Guidance 2016 (LLAQM.TG(16)). https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we- do/environment/pollution-and-air-quality/working-boroughs

Page 1

Contact details

Local Authority Officer Mrs Carol Lee

Department Pollution Team

Address Civic Centre, York Street, Twickenham, TW1 3BZ

Telephone 0208 891 7729

e-mail [email protected]

Report Reference Richmond_ASR_2019 number

Date 28th June 2019

Page 2

Executive Summary

The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames is committed to improving air quality in the Borough. The Council is demonstrating its political leadership; taking action; leading by example; monitoring air quality; using the planning system; integrating air quality into the public health system; and informing the public. This 2019 Annual Status Report reviews recent air quality monitoring in the Borough in accordance with Defra LAQM guidance. In doing so, it fulfils one further aspect of this ongoing commitment.

The report identifies that:

For carbon monoxide, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, lead and sulphur dioxide there is not a significant risk of the objectives being exceeded in the Council’s area.

In December 2000 the Council designated an AQMA across the whole Borough for nitrogen dioxide and particles (specifically PM10). The findings from this report indicate that the AQMA should be maintained.

In view of the findings from the report the Council will undertake the following actions:

1. Undertake consultation with the statutory and other consultees as required. 2. Maintain the existing monitoring programme. 3. Update and implement its Air Quality Action Plan in pursuit of the AQS objectives. 4. Prepare for the submission of its next Air Quality report.

Page 3

CONTENTS

Abbreviations ...... 5 1. Air Quality Monitoring ...... 7 1.1 Locations ...... 7 1.2 Comparison of Monitoring Results with AQOs ...... 17 2. Action to Improve Air Quality ...... 34 2.1 Air Quality Action Plan Progress ...... 34 3. Planning Update and Other New Sources of Emissions ...... 50 3.1 New or significantly changed industrial or other sources ...... 51 Appendix A Details of Monitoring Site QA/QC ...... 52 A.1 Automatic Monitoring Sites ...... 45 A.2 Diffusion Tube Quality Assurance / Quality Control ...... 46 A.3 Adjustments to the Ratified Monitoring Data ...... 53 Appendix B Full Monthly Diffusion Tube Results for 2017...... 56

Tables Table A. Summary of National Air Quality Standards and Objectives ...... 6 Table B. Details of Automatic Monitoring Sites for 2017 ...... 8 Table C. Details of Non-Automatic Monitoring Sites for 2017 ...... 9

-3 Table D. Annual Mean NO2 Ratified and Bias-adjusted Monitoring Results (g m ) ...... 17

Table E. NO2 Automatic Monitor Results: Comparison with 1-hour Mean Objective ...... 25

Table G. PM10 Automatic Monitor Results: Comparison with 24-Hour Mean Objective ...... 29 Table J. Commitment to Cleaner Air Borough Criteria and Delivery of Air Quality Action Plan Measures 30 Table K. Data Adjustment –distance correction ...... 38 Table M NO2 Diffusion Tube Results

Page 4

Abbreviations

AQAP Air Quality Action Plan AQMA Air Quality Management Area AQO Air Quality Objective BEB Buildings Emission Benchmark CAB Cleaner Air Borough CAZ Central Activity Zone EV Electric Vehicle GLA Greater London Authority LAEI London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory LAQM Local Air Quality Management LLAQM London Local Air Quality Management NRMM Non-Road Mobile Machinery

PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 micron in diameter

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 micron in diameter TEB Transport Emissions Benchmark TfL Transport for London

Page 5

Air Quality Objectives

The air quality objectives applicable to LAQM in England are set out in the Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 (SI 928), The Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (SI 3043), and are shown in Table A. This table shows the objectives in units of microgrammes per cubic metre µg m-3 (milligrammes per cubic metre, mg m-3 for carbon monoxide) with the number of exceedences in each year that are permitted (where applicable).

Table A. Summary of National Air Quality Standards and Objectives

Pollutant Objective (UK) Averaging Period Date1

-3 Nitrogen dioxide - NO2 200 g m not to be exceeded more 1-hour mean 31 Dec 2005 than 18 times a year

40 g m-3 Annual mean 31 Dec 2005

-3 Particles - PM10 50 g m not to be exceeded more 24-hour mean 31 Dec 2004 than 35 times a year

40 g m-3 Annual mean 31 Dec 2004

-3 Particles - PM2.5 25 g m Annual mean 2020 Target of 15% reduction in 3 year mean Between 2010 concentration at urban background and 2020 locations

-3 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) 266 μg m not to be exceeded more 15 minute mean 31 Dec 2005 than 35 times a year 350 μg m-3 not to be exceeded more 1 hour mean 31 Dec 2004 than 24 times a year 125 μg m-3 mot to be exceeded 24 hour mean 31 Dec 2004 more than 3 times a year Note: 1by which to be achieved by and maintained thereafter

Page 6

1. Air Quality Monitoring The latest monitoring results for 2018 confirm that air pollution in the LBRuT still exceeds the Government Air Quality objectives, and therefore there is still a need for LBRuT to be designated as an AQMA and to pursue improvements in air quality.

The Council (and NPL for PM2.5) routinely monitor the pollutants below:

 NO2

 PM10

 Ozone (O3)

 PM2.5

The Council previously monitored SO2 (ceased in April 2011), CO (ceased in April 2012), and Benzene (ceased in January 2012) which are not included in this report. Please see previous Council reports for further information. All complied with EU limit values for a minimum of 3 years pre cessation. 1.1 Locations

Automatic Monitoring Sites

The continuous monitors collect real time data, which are stored as 15-minute means and can be converted into the various averages. This type of equipment provides accurate readings of pollution levels but is expensive, so using them for a large coverage of LBRuT is cost prohibitive. The sites (see Table B) are also representative of relevant exposure either at the site or very close by. The three Richmond operated sites are part of the King’s London Air Quality Network, as is the site at the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) which is also part of the government’s UK Automatic Urban and Rural Network (AURN). Richmond also has a mobile Air Quality monitoring unit, which was stationed at Chertsey Road throughout 2018. Results are included in this report.

All data undergoes quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures to ensure that the data obtained is of a high quality. The standards of QA/QC at the LAQN sites are similar to those of the government’s AURN sites. For QA/QC purposes, all the continuous analysers are manually checked and

Page 7

calibrated every two weeks, serviced every six months and audited by an independent auditor (the National Physical Laboratory) every six months. Subsequent data ratification is undertaken by King’s College London. Further details of the sites can be found at www.londonair.org.uk.

Table B. Details of Automatic Monitoring Sites for 2018

Distance from Distance to monitoring kerb of In Inlet Pollutants Monitoring Site ID Site Name X (m) Y (m) Site Type site to nearest road AQMA? height monitored technique relevant (N/A if not exposure applicable) Castelnau Chemiluminescent; RI1 Library, 522500 177165 Roadside Y 8m 3m 2.35m NO2, PM10 TEOM Barnes Children in ajacent play Wetlands area/people NO2, Chemiluminescent; RI2 Centre, 522991 176495 Suburban Y N/A 3.2m attending PM10,O3 TEOM Barnes Wetlands Centre Mobile Air Quality Unit, Chemiluminescent; RHG 515354 173994 Roadside Y 2.3m 1.6m 2.9m NO2, PM10 Chertsey TEOM Rd,TW2 NPL - NO2,PM2.5 Chemiluminescent; TD0 Teddington 515542 170420 Suburban Y N/A N/A and O3 FDMS AURN

Page 8

Non-Automatic Monitoring Sites Table C lists the details of the NO2 diffusion tube monitoring locations in the LBRuT. The tubes are a relatively cheap way of monitoring, which therefore allows samples to be taken across the whole LBRuT and gives a Borough-wide view. The results provide monthly averages and so provide an indication of NO2 pollution levels. The accuracy of the diffusion tube readings can be increased when their results are compared, and the bias adjusted, with data from the more accurate continuous monitors. The Council had a network of 64 diffusion tube sites across the Borough in 2018. Three of the diffusion tubes sites are triplicate and collocated with all 3 Council automatic monitoring sites. All sites are kept under constant review and a few will be amended or moved, often in response to requests for more relevant monitoring, at the beginning of each year.

Table C. Details of Non-Automatic Monitoring Sites for 2018

Distanc Distance Tube co- Pollut In e of of Inlet located Site Site ants Site Name X (m) Y (m) AQMA tube to receptor height with an ID Type monit ? kerbsid to (approx.) automatic ored e kerbside monitor?

(m) (m) (m) (Y/N)

Hampton Court 1 515824 168815 roadside Y 1.7m 1.9m 2.2m NO2 N Rd, Hampton

Percy Rd, 2 Hampton (nr. 513229 169712 roadside Y 1.3m 3.0m 2.2m NO2 N Oldfield Rd) Hampton Rd, Teddington (nr. 4 514882 171155 kerbside Y 0.6m 9.8m 2.2m NO2 N Bushy Pk Gardens)

Page 9

Kingston Rd, 6 Teddington (nr. 517266 170031 kerbside Y 0.7m 6.5m 2.2m NO2 N Woffington Close) Broad St, 7 Teddington 515624 170975 kerbside Y 0.8m 2.5m 2.2m NO2 N (Boots)

Hampton Rd, 9 514842 172346 kerbside Y 0.6m 2.0m 2.2m NO2 N Twickenham

Twickenham Rd, Twickenham 10 513278 172199 kerbside Y 0.6m 7.2m 2.2m NO2 N (opp. Fulwell golf course)

Percy Rd, Whitton 11 514050 173189 kerbside Y 0.6m 9.1m 2.2m NO2 N (nr. Percy Way)

Hanworth Rd, 12 512600 173404 kerbside Y 0.6m 7.4m 2.2m NO2 N Whitton

Whitton Rd, 13 Whitton, (opp. 515228 174082 kerbside Y 0.8m 6.3m 2.2m NO2 N rugby ground) Cross Deep, 14 Twickenham (nr 516133 173051 kerbside Y 0.3m 2.7m 2.2m NO2 N Poulett Gardens) Richmond Rd, Twickenham 15 517197 173939 kerbside Y 0.6m 1.8m 2.2m NO2 N (opp. Marble Hill Pk)

Page 10

St Margarets Rd, 16 St Margarets (nr. 517558 174369 roadside Y 1.2m 3.1m 2.2m NO2 N Bridge Rd)

Red Lion Street, 17 517822 174755 roadside Y 1.2m 2.0m 2.2m NO2 N Richmond

Lower Mortlake 18 Rd, Richmond (nr. 518822 175590 kerbside Y 0.9m 9.3m 2.2m NO2 N Trinity Rd)

Kew Rd, Kew (nr. 19 518637 176161 kerbside Y 0.7m 16m 2.2m NO2 N Walpole Av)

Mortlake Rd, Kew 20 519205 177221 kerbside Y 0.6m 2.8 2.2m NO2 N (nr. Kent Rd)

Lower Richmond 21 Rd, Mortlake, nr 520053 175826 roadside Y 2.0m 7.0m 2.2m NO2 N Chalkers Cnr Castelnau, Barnes 22 (nr. Hammersmith 522845 177904 kerbside Y 0.5m 4.2m 2.2m NO2 N Bridge) Castelnau Library, 23 Barnes (static 522502 177166 roadside Y 3.3m 9m 2.2m NO2 N site) Lonsdale Road, 24 Barnes (nr. Suffolk 521750 177056 kerbside Y 0.3m 6.3m 2.2m NO2 Y Rd)

Page 11

URRW, (nr. Sheen 25 521211 175457 roadside Y 2.3m 2.5m 2.2m NO2 N School)

URRW, Sheen (nr. 26 519031 175021 roadside Y 3.2m 11.8 2.2m NO2 N Courtland Estate)

Queens Rd, 27 Richmond (nr. 518663 174208 kerbside Y 0.7m 6.8m 2.2m NO2 N Russell Walk) urban Holly Lodge, 28 519467 173993 backgro Y 2175m N/A 2.2m NO2 N Richmond Pk und Petersham Rd, 29 Ham (nr. Sandy 517967 172543 kerbside Y 0.6m 3.6m 2.2m NO2 N Lane)

A316 (nr. 31 515438 174048 roadside Y 1.0m 6.4m 2.2m NO2 N Chudleigh Rd)

3.2m Kings St, (2.8m 32 516226 173195 roadside Y 1.0m 2.2m NO2 N Twickenham pavement café)

Heath Rd, 33 515927 173129 roadside Y 3.3m 6.9m 2.2m NO2 N Twickenham

Thames St, 34 513552 169498 roadside Y 1.4m 1.3m 2.4m NO2 N Hampton

Page 12

High St, Hampton 35 517524 169583 roadside Y 1.3m 1.4m 2.2m NO2 N Wick

Upper Richmond Road West 36 520545 175400 roadside Y 2.1m 2.2m 2.2m NO2 N (URRW) nr Sheen Lane urban Wetlands, Barnes 37 522989 176727 backgro Y 1160m 230m 2.2m NO2 N (static site) und Richmond Rd, nr. 39 Richmond Bridge, 517592 174404 roadside Y 1.2m 2.7m 2.2m NO2 Y East Twickenham

Staines Rd, 40 514278 172521 roadside Y 1.0m 11.4m 2.2m NO2 N Twickenham

Paradise Rd, 41 518102 174854 kerbside Y 0.9m 5.6m 2.2m NO2 N Richmond

The 42 Quadrant/Kew 518080 175259 roadside Y 0.7m 2.9m 2.2m NO2 N Rd, Richmond

43 Hill St, Richmond 517771 174701 kerbside Y 0.7m 1.6m 2.2m NO2 N

Sheen Rd, 44 Richmond (near 518458 175042 kerbside Y 0.5m 0.5m 2.2m NO2 N shops)

Page 13

154 High St, 45 516383 171154 kerbside Y 0.5m 3.3m 2.2m NO2 N Teddington,

Causeway, 47 515829 170967 roadside Y 1.8m 2.7m 2.2m NO2 N Teddington

Stanley Rd, 48 Teddington (junc. 515059 171758 roadside Y 2.2m 5.4m 2.2m NO2 N Strathmore Rd)

URRW, nr. Clifford 50 519962 175321 kerbside Y 0.7 2.7 2.2m NO2 N Av, Sheen

Sheen Lane, E. 51 Sheen ( nr railway 520492 175695 kerbside Y 0.4m 1.3m 2.2m NO2 N crossing)

Clifford Av, 52 519776 175746 kerbside Y 0.5 2.2 2.2m NO2 N Chalkers Corner

co-located on 53 mobile Air Quality 3 sites 3 sites roadside Y varies varies 2.2m NO2 N unit Mortlake Road, 54 adjacent to West 519585 176492 kerbside Y 0.6 1.4 2.2m NO2 N Hall Road, Kew Mortlake Road, 55 adjacent to 519793 176142 kerbside Y 0.6 4.1 2.2m NO2 Y Cemetery Gates,

Page 14

A316 (St 56 516788 174519 roadside Y 1.0m 9.6m 2.2m NO2 N Magarets)

A316 (Lincoln 57 513915 172899 roadside Y 1.00m 16.4m 2.2m NO2 N Avenue)

London Road, 58 516039 173766 kerbside Y 0.7m 6.4m 2.2m NO2 N Twickenham

Whitton Rd, Twickenham 59 (near 515980 173758 kerbside Y 0.6m 1.4m 2.2m NO2 N Twickenham bridge) Waldegrave Rd, 60 515894 171148 kerbside Y 0.5m 2.2m 2.2m NO2 N Teddington London Road, 61 Twickenham 516224 173444 roadside Y 1.8m 4.3m 2.2m NO2 N (near Waitrose)

High Street, 62 521651 176430 kerbside Y 0.4m 2.3m 2.2m NO2 N Barnes

High Street, 63 514181 173875 kerbside Y 0.8m 3.2m 2.2m NO2 N Whitton

High Street, 64 514484 171251 kerbside Y 0.5m 1.6m 2.2m NO2 N Hampton Hill

Page 15

York Street, 65 516339 173366 kerbside Y 0.5m 2.7m 2.2m NO2 N Twickenham South Circular, 66 519060 177428 roadside Y 2.1m 3.3m 2.2m NO2 N Kew Green Petersham Rd 67 opp Poppy 518042 174095 roadside Y 1.4m 2.7m 2.2m NO2 N Factory, Rocks Lane, 68 522434 176507 roadside Y 3.2m 3.8m 2.2m NO2 N Barnes Uxbridge Rd nr 69 Longford Cl, 513494 171729 roadside Y 2.0m 2.9m 2.2m NO2 N TW12

Rut Civic Centre, York 516356 173365 roadside Y 2.9m 3.0m 3.5m NO2 N 01 St, Twickenham

Rut George Street, 517917 174928 kerbside Y 0.7m 2.2m 2.2m NO2 N 02 Richmond

Sites changes for 2018: sites 3 and 49 were closed, site 68 and 69 were opened, site 21 and 52 were moved closer to junction in response to resident’s requests. All grid references in this chart are correct for 2018. Please see 2017 ASR for former grid references

Page 16

1.2 Comparison of Monitoring Results with AQOs

The results presented are after bias adjustment and “annualisation” where required (annualisation required in LBRuT for 2018 at sites 33, 43 and 61 see Appendix A).

Table D. Annual Mean NO2 Ratified and Bias- -3) For results that indicate the exposure estimate, calculated for the nearest residential façade see Appendix A3. Valid data Valid captur data -3 e for Annual Mean Concentration (μgm ) Site ID Site type captur monito e 2018 ring % period

% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Castelnau Library, Roadside 100% 98% 37 39 37 34 36 31 31 Barnes (RI1) Wetlands Centre, Suburban 100% 96% 25 24 25 21 25 21 20 Barnes (RI2) Mobile- Chertsey Roadside 100% 93% 44 43 42 N/A N/A 37 34 Rd, TW2 (RHG) NPL - Teddington Suburban N/A N/A 36 21 27 19 22 N/A N/A AURN (TD0)

Page 17

1 Roadside 100 100 45 47 49 41 56 55 41 2 Roadside 100 75 34 32 33 28 31 29 32 3 Roadside 100 closed 44 44 44 41 42 39 closed 4 Kerbside 100 100 44 44 44 36 40 36 35 5 Kerbside closed closed 33 closed closed closed closed closed closed 6 Kerbside 100 100 43 43 41 36 37 30 34 7 Kerbside 100 100 59 61 54 47 49 43 45 8 Kerbside closed closed 34 closed closed closed closed closed closed 9 Kerbside 100 100 50 49 48 42 45 40 40 10 Kerbside 100 100 44 46 47 43 44 42 41 11 Kerbside 100 100 54 49 48 44 48 47 46 12 Kerbside 100 100 45 49 46 41 45 41 44 13 Kerbside 100 100 48 48 47 42 42 40 39 14 Kerbside 100 92 48 46 45 39 40 36 36 15 Kerbside 100 100 44 40 40 37 41 38 34 16 Roadside 100 92 45 44 43 41 42 38 37 17 Kerbside 100 92 70 68 68 63 69 60 54 18 Kerbside 100 100 68 71 66 67 56 58 46 19 Kerbside 100 83 56 53 55 48 49 49 42 20 Kerbside 100 100 53 51 55 48 47 45 38 21 Roadside 100 92 43 44 41 37 39 36 50 22 Kerbside 100 100 51 57 59 53 65 52 45 23 Roadside 100 100 38 39 38 35 35 35 31 24 Kerbside 100 100 40 40 40 35 37 34 31 25 Roadside 100 100 47 51 51 45 46 38 38 26 Roadside 100 100 42 43 42 40 40 36 36

Page 18

Roadside 100 92 41 40 38 37 43 41 37 27 Urban 100 100 22 21 18 17 21 17 18 28 background 29 Kerbside 100 100 43 39 36 30 32 30 31 30 Roadside 100 100 36 38 34 29 33 closed closed 31 Roadside 100 92 59 61 62 54 54 52 49 32 Roadside 100 100 77 74 73 62 64 59 56 33 Kerbside 100 58 58 62 69 61 61 53 52 34 Roadside 100 92 39 38 40 33 36 35 32 35 Roadside 100 100 50 52 48 43 46 45 42 100 92 54 56 56 49 50 60 63 36 Roadside Urban 100 100 25 25 22 21 25 20 21 37 background 38 Kerbside closed closed closed closed closed closed closed closed closed 39 Kerbside 100 100 62 56 56 52 55 52 45 40 Kerbside 100 83 43 41 40 36 45 42 41 41 Kerbside 100 92 45 42 41 38 39 36 34 42 Roadside 100 92 56 58 54 47 82 89 72 43 Kerbside 100 50 78 87 80 80 85 78 59 44 Kerbside 100 100 46 45 45 39 42 41 40 45 Kerbside 100 100 43 48 45 35 37 35 33 46 Kerbside closed closed 41 closed closed closed closed closed closed 47 Roadside 100 92 40 40 37 32 33 31 29 48 Roadside 100 100 42 45 45 39 41 40 40 49 Kerbside 100 100 47 45 45 39 44 31 closed 50 Kerbside 100 92 63 61 60 57 55 53 52

Page 19

51 Kerbside 100 100 36 34 34 28 32 35 33 52 Kerbside 100 100 59 59 62 55 57 50 59

varies 100 100 46 48 48 N/A N/A 44 43 53 54 Roadside 100 100 55 54 56 51 49 48 40 55 Roadside 100 92 48 52 55 50 50 45 41 56 Kerbside 100 100 41 46 38 37 51 50 43 57 Kerbside 100 92 38 39 36 33 44 42 43 58 Kerbside 100 92 52 58 50 46 50 47 43 59 Kerbside 100 100 44 46 42 40 44 39 40 60 Kerbside 100 92 40 32 32 27 29 29 29 61 Roadside 100 58 55 58 54 48 49 45 43 62 Kerbside 100 92 Not open 54 52 46 51 50 43 63 Kerbside 100 92 Not open 43 42 38 41 38 38 64 Kerbside 100 92 Not open 54 60 55 53 49 45 Not Not Not 65 Kerbside 100 83 Not open 75 68 55 open open open Not Not Not 66 Kerbside 100 Not open 49 49 42 100 open open open Not Not Not Not 67 Kerbside 100 92 Not open 44 41 open open open open Not Not Not Not Not 68 Kerbside 100 100 Not open 55 open open open open open Not Not Not Not Not 69 Kerbside 100 83 Not open 38 open open open open open Rut 01 Kerbside 100 100 53 60 56 45 50 51 38 Rut 02 Kerbside 100 83 95 94 88 88 96 82 66

-3 Notes: Exceedance of the NO2 annual mean AQO of 40 μgm are shown in bold (orange/red).

Page 20

-3 2 NO2 annual means in excess of 60 μg m , indicating a potential exceedance of the NO hourly mean AQS objective are shown in bold and underlined(red). The bias adjustment factor used for all roadside/kerbside sites is 0.92 calculated using the national Gradko bias adjustment figure for 50%TEA/ACETONE.. The bias adjustment factor for background sites 28 and 37 is 0.93 calculated using the Wetlands site. In 2015 the taxi rank was moved from outside Richmond station to opposite Richmond station. 6/1/16 site 42 moved along Quadrant from near bus stops to near new taxi rank From 3/1/17 sites 25, 36, 49, 51, 56 were moved slightly ( <20m) largely in response to residents requests for marginally better monitoring locations. All grid references are correct for 2017 and 2018 monitoring. Please see our 2016 Annual Status Report for earlier coordinates. From 6/1/16 site 57 was moved nearer road, no longer behind small section of green screening to better represent most of this section of A316. From 2/1/18 site 21 and 51 were moved closer to Chalker’s Corner junction in response to resident’s requests. Site 36 was moved slightly ( <20m); sites 3 and 49 were closed; sites 68 and 69 opened. See Table C for correct grid references for 2018 and 2017 ASR for earlier grid references.

Diffusion Tube Monitoring Data Table D shows the NO2 diffusion tube monitoring results, with bias corrected values for each year from 2012 to 2018. (Note – see Table M for monthly data for 2018 and Table K for the distance corrected). The results in bold(orange/red) indicate an exceedance of the annual mean objective of 40 g m-3 and the results underlined (red) indicate NO2 annual means in excess of 60 g m-3 indicating a potential exceedance of the NO2 hourly mean AQS objective.

The data capture for 2018 for most sites (86%) was very good (97.1%) but for the remaining 14% was disappointing – we appeared to suffer an unfortunate number of missing tubes at certain sites – more than in any single year since monitoring began in 1993. This is most unfortunate - whether or not this was deliberate is unknown. In particular, sites 33 and 61 suffered from missing tubes for 5 out of 12 months and 43 for 6 out of 12 months. Where data capture is less than 75%, as at these 3 sites, annualising in line with DEFRA guidance, TG(16) was required and was applied. Inevitably, data at these sites is possibly not as robust as at all other sites. Overall data capture for 2018, including sites 33, 43 and 61 was 87.2%.

The total number of sites where monitoring was undertaken was 64; 3 of these were triplicates, co-located next to real time analysers, 2 were background. The remainder were roadside or kerbside. The results from the 2018 monitoring show that the objective of 40 g m-3 was exceeded at 41 sites, which is one more site than in 2017, though not always the same sites. 66% of sites have gone down, 20% of sites have gone up and 14% of sites have remained the same. This is good news in that far more have improved than worsened, though more improvement is required. Three of these sites also exceeded an annual mean of 60 g m-3 which indicates that the 1 hour-mean objective may also have been exceeded at these locations. This is down from 6

Page 21

exceedences of the 1 hour-mean objective in 2017, so half the number, which is significant. This represents a decrease in the highest concentrations from 2016 to 2017 to 2018. The highest exceedence at any site has decreased from 96 ug/m3 in 2016; 89 ug/m3 in 2017 and 72 ug/m3 in 2018 . This is encouraging. Although East Sheen, along Upper Richmond Road West remains high and has increased. The site was moved slightly this year ( <20m). Congestion along this section of the South Circular remains high, so improvements in fleet appear to be negated by the number of vehicles on the road. This will not be helped in 2019 by the closure of Hammersmith Bridge for major repairs. The main decreases are concentrated around Richmond and Twickenham town centres and it is too early to be sure of a downward trend in levels of NO2. Looking generally at town centres, with the exception of East Sheen, there does appear to be a possible downward trend, although, as advised, it is rather early to be sure. Contributory factors are likely to be the introduction of cleaner buses and possibly the slow introduction of cleaner taxis and EV’s into the fleet mix. Some main roads across the borough do not replicate this - some go up slightly, others down slightly year on year. 2011, 2015, 2017 and 2018 saw slightly lower levels but overall levels of NO2 have not reduced as quickly as desired. As is well known, Euro VI/6 standards have failed to deliver the forecast reductions in NO2 levels in real world driving conditions that were predicted. The sale of diesel cars has seen a significant reduction over the last 18 months but the rental market for diesels remains buoyant and the number of vehicles on the road has continued to increase, so congestion has continued to increase; this is a major hindrance to reductions in NO2. The LEZ, which has encouraged the use of Euro 4 or better for commercial vehicles , applicable along the A316, does seem to have resulted in some benefits indicated by lower trend data at site 18 and site 31 and also slight reductions at site 56, although 57 remains fairly static (NO2 diffusion tubes at both sites were moved slightly nearer the A316 on 2/1/16). George Street Richmond, which had recorded the highest exceedance each year since the site began, has shown a marked decrease in 2017 and 2018. The highest exceedance for 2018, as in 2017, was opposite Richmond station, The Quadrant Richmond, which is probably more a result of the new road layout, moving the taxi rank across the road. As mentioned above, new hybrid/cleaner buses were introduced in 2017 and 2018 on routes R68, R70, 65, 267 and 285. All sites along these routes show a small decrease – in 2018 site 42 and Rut 2 in Richmond, site 32 and 65 in Twickenham indicate encouraging reductions; site 64 in Hampton Hill and site 45 and 7 in Teddington are particularly affected, as these routes form a significant part of the bus fleet for these areas. This is encouraging and we will continue to monitor progress. The borough has lobbied the mayor for swifter upgrades across the bus fleet. We are promised that all bus fleets serving LBRuT will be hybrid or upgraded to cleaner buses by October 2020. Site 42 is next to the Richmond station taxi rank. Much work has been carried out during 2018 both top down and bottom up, with the

Page 22

GLA and with the taxi drivers. We have had anti idling articles published in taxi trade magazines and Officer time and idling action campaigns have been spent talking to taxi drivers reminding them to not idle and this appears to be showing benefits. Taxi drivers are now switching off regularly when queuing in the taxi rank, which is very welcome. The data for 2018 indicates that approximately two thirds (63%) of the sites exceed the objective of 40 g m-3 with no sites recording double the objective. After the distance correction, the annual mean objective is exceeded at 27 sites. 3 sites exceed the annual mean concentration of 60 g m-3, which as advised, indicates that the 1 hour-mean objective may also have been exceeded at these locations. These sites are:

Site 42 -The Quadrant, Richmond (72 g m-3 ) Site Rut 2 - George Street, Richmond (66 g m-3 ) Site 36 - Upper Richmond Rd West, near Sheen Lane, East Sheen (63g m-3 )

There was only a small variation between the locations for the different years; this was due to some of the sites being closed or moved.

The overall monitoring results for the Borough therefore show that NO2 concentrations exceeded the UK annual mean objective (as it has done for each year since 2002). This is also in line with the modelling prediction of the Borough (reported in the 2015 Annual Status Report). Improvements are still required.

This year as well as including bar charts of data for all sites ranked in order of exceedance, we have also looked back at 10 sites covering town centres, main roads, a level crossing and a background site from 2002 – 2018 to give more perspective to levels of NO2 over a longer time period. We hope this is enlightening.

Page 23

Figure 1: Nitrogen Dioxide Bias Adjusted Annual Average Concentrations for all sites for 2018 (split over 2 graphs)

Bias adjusted annual average NO2 data in ug/m3 for 2018 90 85 80 75 70

65

3 60 55

50 ug/m

45 2 40

NO 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

site

NO2 EU Target

Page 24

Figure 1: Nitrogen Dioxide Bias Adjusted Annual Average Concentrations for all sites for 2018 (split over 2 graphs)

Bias adjusted annual average NO2 data in ug/m3 for 2018 90 85 80 75 70 65

60 3 55

50 ug/m

45

2 40 NO

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

site

2018 EU Target

Page 25

Figure 2: Nitrogen Dioxide Bias Adjusted Annual Average Concentrations for 10 sites across LBRuT 2002 -2018 (split over 2 graphs)

Page 26

Page 27

Table E. NO2 Automatic Monitor Results: Comparison with 1-hour Mean Objective

Valid data Valid -3 capture for data Number of Hourly Means > 200 μgm Site ID monitoring capture period % 2018 %

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Castelnau Library, 100 98 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Barnes (R1) Wetlands Centre, 100 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barnes (R2) Mobile- Chertsey 100 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rd, TW2 (RHG)

-3 Notes: Exceedance of the NO2 short term AQO of 200 μgm over the permitted 18 days per year are shown in bold.

Automatic Monitoring Site data

The NO2 monitoring results for the three LBRuT automatic sites are compared directly to the annual mean and hourly mean objectives. The data for 2018 is fully ratified. The Mobile Air Quality Unit was located at Chertsey Rd, Twickenham throughout 2018. Data has therefore been included in this report.

The 2018 NO2 data capture for Castlenau, Wetlands and the Mobile was very good, representing 98% data capture for the RI1 (Castelnau), 96% for RI2 (Wetlands) and 93% for RHG (the Mobile).

Page 28

Table D provides the 2018 results of the NO2 automatic monitoring and a comparison with the annual mean objective. The 2018 results show that all three sites met the objective of 40 g m-3. The 2018 annual mean for the RI2 (Wetlands) was 20 g m-3 This site is a background site and therefore representative of low pollution in the Borough. The annual mean at the RI1 (Castelnau) and RHG Mobile site on Chertsey Rd, Twickenham, both roadside sites was 31 g m-3 and 34 g m-3 respectively. There does seem to be a very slight downward trend at all sites. It should be noted for Castlenau site that from Saturday 28 May 2016 and throughout 2017 and 2018 in order to preserve the lifespan of Hammersmith Bridge, sited at the end of Castlenau, it was necessary to limit the number of buses using the structure. HGV’s were also limited – the bridge had a weight restriction of 7.5 tonnes preventing many HGV’s from crossing and therefore reducing their number past the air Quality cabin at the library. On 11th May 2019 the bridge was closed for safety reasons until strengthening work is completed. This means a large reduction in the number of vehicles along Castlenau and will have a significant effect on 2019 data. It should also be noted that pollution levels at Castlenau roadside site are generally lower than at many other roadside and kerbside sites around the borough. Consideration has been given to relocating the site. On balance, following discussions with the Council and Kings College London, for data continuity and trend data purposes, it has been decided to leave it in situ. This will be reviewed annually.

Table E provides the results of automatic monitoring for NO2 for the 1-hour mean objective of 200 g m-3. This objective is less stringent than the annual mean and it was met at all sites and for every year reported with the exception of Castelnau where this standard was exceeded twice in 2013. This is good news.

Page 29

-3 Table F. Annual Mean PM10 Automatic Monitoring Results (g m )

Valid data Valid -3 capture for data Annual Mean Concentration (μgm ) Site ID monitoring capture period % a 2018 %

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Castelnau Library, Barnes 100 99 21 22 20 22 20 18 19 (RI1) Wetlands Centre, Barnes 100 94 18 20 18 17 16 15 15 (RI2) Mobile- Chertsey Rd, TW2 100 94 24 25 N/A N/A N/A 18 21 (RI2)

-3 Notes: Exceedance of the PM10 annual mean AQO of 40 μgm are shown in bold. In 2014, 2015 and 2016 the mobile was sited at more than 1 site. Annual data is therefore not available.

PM10

The LBRuT uses a Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) to continuously monitor PM10. All TEOM results are converted to reference equivalence using the Volatile Correction Method (VCM), which is administered by King’s College London, when they process our monitoring data. As mentioned in section 1, PM10 is a specified pollutant for the whole Borough AQMA.

Page 30

The PM10 monitoring results for the LBRuT automatic sites are compared directly to the annual mean and 24 hour mean objectives. Tables F and G provide results for the period from 2012 to 2018 inclusive. The data for each year is fully ratified.

PM10 measurement was undertaken at three sites and the data capture was good. In 2018 the RI1 Castelnau site achieved 99% , the RI2 Wetlands site and the RHG mobile site both achieved 94%.

Table F provides results of automatic monitoring of PM10 and a comparison with annual mean objective. The objective of 40 g m-3 was met at each site for every year reported.

The 2018 annual mean for PM10 at both the roadside site in Castlenau Barnes and at the background site at the Wetlands Centre in Barnes was the same or fractionally higher than in 2017 but generally over the last 7 years the trend is very slightly downwards. The background site in particular has gone down slightly each year for the last 4 years and remained the same for 2017 and 2018. This is encouraging and appears to be a slight gradual downward trend. It is however only fractional and did creep up again slightly at Castlenau in 2018, so we can not be complacent and need to keep an eye on this. We will reassess this in next years’ report. The level at the Mobile can be compared to 2017 as it was at the same site – it can not be compared to former years as these were at different sites. It does indicate an increase in 2018 from 18g m-3 to 21g m-3. This means all sites meet the EU limit value ( 40 g m-3) but the Mobile failed the much stricter WHO guidelines ( 20 g m-3) for PM10. Moreover, modelling indicates there are some exceedences of PM10 on some sections of major roads within the borough, so vigilance is required.

Page 31

Table G provides the comparison with the 24-hour mean objective for PM10. The objective of no more than 35 days exceeding 50 g m-3 was met at each site for all years reported. All sites however exceeded this daily standard at least once for all years reported. The number of days exceeding the daily standard at each site was low in all the last 5 years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 and as a trend does appear to be falling gradually and not returning to pre 2011 levels. Elevated PM10 levels can result from episodes, which are often the result of local combined with imported transboundary conditions from elsewhere in the UK and Europe. The concentrations measured in Richmond are considered typical of those measured elsewhere across London (KCL, 2012).

Table G. PM10 Automatic Monitor Results: Comparison with 24-Hour Mean Objective

Valid data Valid -3 capture for data Number of Daily Means > 50 μgm Site ID monitoring capture period % 2018 %

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Castelnau Library, Barnes 100 99 14 10 4 5 7 4 1 (RI1) Wetlands Centre, Barnes 100 94 13 6 3 1 3 3 0 (RI2) Mobile- Chertsey 100 94 10 8 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 Rd (RHG)

Page 32

-3 -3 Notes: Exceedance of the PM10 short term AQO of 50 μg m over the permitted 35 days per year or where the 90.4th percentile exceeds 50 μg m are shown in bold. Where the period of valid data is less than 90% of a full year, the 90.4th percentile is shown in brackets after the number of exceedances.

-3 Table H. Annual Mean PM2.5 Automatic Monitoring Results (g m )

Valid data -3 Valid data Annual Mean Concentration (μgm ) capture for Site ID capture monitoring 2018 % 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 period %

NPL

Bushy Park, 100 94 11.5 16.7 N/A N/A N/A Teddington 10 11

(TD5)

-3 Notes: Exceedance of the PM2.5 annual mean AQO of 25 μgm are shown in bold.

Table H provides results of automatic monitoring of PM2.5 by NPL in Bushy Park and a comparison with annual mean objective. The objective of 25 g m-3 was met for every year reported. The data capture was good (94%) but the data for 2018 is not fully ratified so should be treated with caution.

This does reinforce results of compliance for particulate matter in the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. The Council, together with many other local authorities in London, does not currently have a PM2.5 monitor.

Page 33

2. Action to Improve Air Quality Table J. Commitment to Cleaner Air Borough Criteria

Theme Criteria Achieved (Y/N) Evidence

1. Political 1.a Pledged to become a Cleaner Air for London Borough (at cabinet level) by Y In 2017 -18 Richmond established a cross-party leadership taking significant action to improve local air quality and signing up to specific Scrutiny Committee to review and monitor delivery targets. measures to improve air pollution in the Borough. Political leadership changed in the May 2018 Council elections. The new administration pledged strong support for air quality and have a Cabinet Member for Air Quality and Transport and Created a new Committee specifically covering Air Quality.

1.b Provided an up-to-date Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP), fully incorporated into Y The redrafted AQAP for 2018-23 was put on LIP funding and core strategies. hold following the May 2018 change of administration.. In 2019 the Council set up and consulted a group of community representatives to engage with residents before publication of the 2019 - 2024 AQAP. The intention is to make the new AQAP more robust, public facing and interactive and the best in London. The AQAP will go before Committee in July 2019 In 2018 we produced a new Local 2. Taking action 2.a Taken decisive action to address air pollution, especially where human Y Implementation Plan (LIP3) supporting the local exposure and vulnerability (e.g. schools, older people, hospitals etc) is highest. implementation of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. This includes the headline target for 75% of trips to be by walking, cycling and public transport from a baseline of 61%. The LIP also includes specific targets to reduce CO2, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions in the borough. We are working to introduce School Streets for 2019/20 school year at a small number of schools, which will be time closures at school start and finish times to reduce exposure to air pollution right outside the school gates and

Page 34

encourage more children to walk and cycle to school. We are updating our Cycling Strategy to encompass walking as well as cycling, and to be published late 2019 as the Active Travel Strategy. We are developing our plans for a strategic cycle network, which will see a comprehensive network of Cycleway-standard routes, with the initial routes from Hampton Court Bridge to Kingston Bridge, and Kingston Bridge to Twickenham town centre introduced in 2020. The Richmond Cycle Hub is due to be completed in 2020, and we will improve cycle routes to and from the Richmond Station to encourage more cycling. We are working on introducing contraflow cycling facilities on as many one-way streets as possible in the borough, with 12 due for completion in 2019/20.

2.b Developed plans for business engagement (including optimising deliveries and Y We have drafted a new Code of Practice for the supply chain), retrofitting public buildings using the RE:FIT framework, boroughs construction industry that incorporates integrating no engine idling awareness raising into the work of civil enforcement NRMM & dust and emission controls, as well as officers, (etc etc) embedding the best practice of construction logistics.

We have developed London Wide NRMM guidance for Planners and EH professionals Through the Cycling and business engagement project we continue to work closely with businesses to develop pollution free cycling Maps for the borough. Retiming of deliveries to off peak became permanent in 2017 in St Margarets. This was trialled in 2017 -18 in Hampton Hill High Street but was discontinued due to noise complaints from nearby residents. In 2018 3 x successful Idling awareness events as part of the MAQF took place and hundreds of drivers were engaged and switched off. Preparations were made for civil enforcement for idling which went live 1/3/19.

Page 35

The borough works with TfL to identify junctions 2.c Integrated transport and air quality, including by improving traffic flows on Y where traffic signal timings can be improved to borough roads to reduce stop/start conditions help smooth traffic flows. As part of any wider transport schemes, opportunities are also taken to review signal timings and junction layouts where congestion is an issue. Chalkers Corner was reviewed as part of the Stag Brewery planning application in 2018. The borough is trying to increase the mode share for walking, cycling and public transport and improve bus speeds to help encourage sustainable transport, which in turn will help reduce reliance on the private car helping to ease congestion.

The Council makes use of a range of funding 2.d Made additional resources available to improve local air quality, including by Y sources to help deliver its transport schemes pooling its collective resources (s106 funding, LIPs, parking revenue, etc). which in turn deliver air quality benefits. Sources include TfL LIP funding, Community Infrastructure Levy, Borough Cycle Programme, Bus Priority Programme, s106 funding, Council uplift funding, Council revenue funding and Mayor’s Air Quality funding. The Council has continued to support school projects ( see 2a) with successful implementation of additional fencing and green screening in 2018.

3. Leading by 3.a Invested sufficient resources to complement and drive action from others Y Maintain Revenue staff funding for air quality example and monitoring. Access funding streams through Section106, Local Implementation Plan and the Community Infrastructure Levy

3.b Maintained an appropriate monitoring network so that air quality impacts within Y All of the Councils monitoring network has been the borough can be properly understood maintained and is continually updated. We also maintain mobile monitoring equipment that can be deployed for specific projects or loaned to other partner authorities.

Page 36

3.c Reduced emissions from council operations, including from buildings, vehicles Y LBRUT has installed solar panels on the roof of and all activities. the Civic Centre to help reduce emissions, upgraded Council fleet and set conditions for contractor fleet through procurement. 50% of the fleet are Euro 4 3.d Adopted a procurement code which reduces emissions from its own and its Y suppliers activities, including from buildings and vehicles operated by and on their behalf (e.g. rubbish trucks). 50 % of fleet are Euro 5/6

New refuse contract with strict emission criteria to be introduced Apr 2020.

4. Using the 4.a Fully implemented the Mayor's policies relating to air quality neutral, combined Y All approved planning applications meet the planning system heat and power and biomass. Mayor’s requirements relating to AQ neutral and CHPs

4.b Collect s106 from new developments to ensure air quality neutral development, y The AQ Officer requests S106 payments where possible wherever possible from developers as part of mitigation measures on major developments. Air Quality is now a specific focus of the new Local Plan and the borough is finalising a new Richmond specific AQ SPD focused on the council’s priorities for new developments, including formalising the Section 106 conditions.

4.c Provided additional enforcement of construction and demolition guidance, with Y Strict planning conditions for construction and regular checks on medium and high risk building sites. demolition applied to all major sites. Complaints responded to. NRMM conditions applied to all major sites. Site visits requiring compliance to NRMM carried out.

5. Integrating air 5 Included air quality in the borough’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy and/or the Y Health and Wellbeing Strategy includes air quality into the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment quality as a key theme. More joint working public health proposed in new AQAP 2019 – 2024. system

6. Informing the 6.a Raised awareness about air quality locally Y LBRuT’s Communication dept has played an public important role in AQ awareness raising this year, through social media, website, newspapers , letters to local companies etc on priorities such as anti idling and use of authorised fuel/approved wood burning appliance in smoke control areas. airTEXT is promoted on the website and at

Page 37

local events. LBRuT continued to host 3 more successful idling action events in 2018-19 as part of the Mayor’s campaign, involving many volunteers and speaking to large numbers of drivers. CEO’s trained in anti-idling and are currently active in the borough. All events were based around schools and level crossings or town centres. More events are planned for later in 2019. Lessons are given to local schools to raise awareness for air quality.

2.1 Air Quality Action Plan Progress Table K provides a brief summary of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames’ progress against the Air Quality Action Plan in place throughout 2018. New projects which commenced/continued/were completed in 2018 are mentioned throughout.

An updated AQAP for 2019 – 2024 will be taken before Committee in July. Delays have occurred due to the change in administration, following the local elections in May 2018. This put a hold on the consulted and approved AQAP for 2018 – 2023 and a substantial re-write. This will be beneficial for air quality in LBRuT. The new AQAP has involved direct consultation and engagement with community groups before the re-write. The result is a more robust, more transparent, more accountable AQAP, which is interactive and public facing. Improving air quality in the borough was a top manifesto commitment for the incoming Liberal Democrat administration. The new AQAP will reflect changes in air quality policy, creating an environment that is welcoming to sustainable transport and aimed at the pedestrian and/or cyclist, identifying specific bold and brave measures to tackle pollution in local ‘hot-spots’ within the borough and prioritising schools.

The updated AQAP, once finalised and approved, will be supported by the departmental Heads of Service for Environmental Health, Transport and Planning, Public Health; the Director of Public Health, the Director of Environment and Cabinet members. It will use an interactive dashboard and adopted measures will include quarterly updates and targets and include Community pages. It will be reported in the 2020 Annual Status Report.

Page 38

Table K. Delivery of Air Quality Action Plan Measures A. Londonwide and Regional Measures B. Boroughwide Measures C. Local Measures

A LONDONWIDE AND REGIONAL MEASURES

Measure Action Progress Further information

1 Participate in the LBRUT has engaged fully with the Mayor and The LEZ has forced the most polluting commercial development of a low TfL in the implementation of the LEZ and all diesel vehicles driving in London to become emission zone (LEZ) and consultations, including the T (toxicity) charge, cleaner. engage with TfL for further implemented in the central congestion charging measures to reduce zone in October 2017 and then ULEZ, The introduction of the T charge in 2017 and the pollution in London. implemented 24/7 in central London in April ULEZ in 2019 helped further. 2019. It has also engaged with the prosed The Council has actively taken part in all extension of the ULEZ to the North and South engagement meetings with TfL and responded to th circulars from 25 October 2021. every consultation, for LEZ, T charge and ULEZ. It is very keen to improve air quality but concerned at possible disbenefits of an expanded ULEZ. The Council will continue to engage as an active participant but will seek an exemption for the Council’s main Waste and Recycling facility.

Page 39

Measure Action Progress Further information

2 Encourage Heathrow The topic of poor air quality continues to be of Our concern remains that the use of an extra Airport Ltd to take action supreme concern with the evidence that many runway together with intensified runway use will to reduce emissions at thousands of people will experience worse air lead to increases in aircraft movements in the sky, Heathrow from surface pollution due to increases in air traffic and and increases in road traffic movements on the access traffic, site traffic, airport related road traffic. ground, both leading to greater pollution aircraft and other sources. emissions. We oppose any increase in airport capacity which is at the expense of keeping any

gains in air quality and noise improvements. We will continue to do this.

3 Lobby the Mayor of This standard has now been met. The bus fleet Areas with a concentration of buses and taxis London to ensure that, as continues to improve. Zero Emission Capable should obtain a significant local benefit. a minimum buses and taxis taxis only ( ZEC) have been registered from 1st Idling of buses and taxis is an ongoing issue and meet the LEZ EURO III and January 2018. LBRuT are in regular contact with TFL to try and IV criteria LBRUT has concerns regarding the contribution ensure compliance. of emissions from buses and taxis in town centres, particularly in Richmond and will continue to encourage early upgrades by lobbying TfL 4 Through the 2018 LIP Funding process we have In 2018 we updated our Local Implementation Lobby the Mayor to delivered a number of successful cycling, Plan to reflect the Mayor’s new Transport

Page 40

Measure Action Progress Further information

achieve London-wide walking & bus schemes. Strategy. The document has been approved by the improvements for Deputy Mayor for Transport and implementation LBRUT engaged in joint projects with Network pedestrians, cyclists and of the plan is starting in 2019. The headline target public transport where Rail to identify additional cycle parking at of the plan is to increase the mode share for there will be local benefits. stations throughout 2018. LBRuT have agreed walking, cycling and public transport, with a plans with SW Trains for a Richmond cycling decrease in car use. hub and cycle parking for 2020. The Council is working on all aspects of the cycle 4 cycle hangers were installed in 2018 and programme to ensure successful delivery in discussions for more continue. 2018/19/20 and have firm ambitions for the borough. Cycle parking is ongoing. A Brompton docking station for Twickenham was installed in 2018 with a view to installing a similar one for Richmond.

Improved facilities for pedestrians continue.

LBRuT now has hybrid buses operating on routes R68, R70, 65, 267 and 285 and more are programmed for 2019/2020. By Oct 2020 the entire TfL bus fleet serving LBRuT will be hybrid or retrofitted.

Page 41

Measure Action Progress Further information

5 The SWELTRAC partnership came to an end in Work with other SW This will be addressed in our new AQAP 2019 – 2011 It was replaced by a South London London Boroughs in 2024. Transport Partnership and the South London SWELTRAC Schemes Electric Vehicle Charging points are a priority and Transport Strategy Board. are being rolled out across the borough. Any One of the most important developments is the resident with no off road parking can apply online setting up and running of EV charge points by for a lamp column EVCP. Source London. 46 Source London chargepoints were installed LBRUT adopted an Electric Vehicle Charging across the Borough in 2018 for Phase 1 and 2 in 18 Strategy in November 2016, setting out locations, mainly on the Surrey side of the proposals to add over 200 new chargepoints in borough - in Kew, Barns, Mortlake and Barnes the borough across 80 locations by 2025/26 Common, North Richmond, East Sheen and South and to encourage takeup of electric cars in the Twickenham. borough. Trialling of lamp column mounted The public consultation of Phase 3, for the Middx chargepoints to allow overnight charging in side of the borough is complete and 25-35 sites residential areas for residents with no off-road will be decided in Summer/Autumn 2019. These parking was introduced in 2017 and promoted will require planning permission; it is anticipated throughout 2018/2019 on LBRuT website, these will be installed in Autumn/Winter 2019. delivered by ubitricity. The wards covered by Phase 3 are: Hampton Wick, Heathfield, St. Margaret’s and North Twickenham, Teddington, Twickenham Riverside, West Twickenham, and Whitton.

180 lamp column chargepoints were installed between February 2019 and April 2019 to allow overnight charging for residents with no off-road

Page 42

Measure Action Progress Further information

parking available

Another 60-80 lamp column chargepoints are planned to be installed across the Borough in Autumn 2019.

4 sites for rapid chargepoints have been selected by LBRuT and TfL to be submitted to planning for planning approval. These sites aim to support businesses who operate electric vehicles. Installation is expected in Autumn 2019.

6 The shared service of LBRUT and LB Merton has LBRUT and LB Merton will continue to lead the Work with the adjacent led the NRMM program to address pollution NRMM program in 2019/2020. This will have a Boroughs and West from development sites across 14 LA’s. In 2018 significant effect on improving air quality in the London Alliance local they visited 181 development sites. local area around each development site and authorities, to develop co- contribute to the improvement in air quality in ordinated AQAPs across London. the region. Joint working with both South and West LIP funding continued to support an Air Quality London authorities is ongoing and resulted in awareness programs with schools in 2018 which the Clean air4schools program funded by the included members of the community. MAQF This was continued by Officers, in house, in LBRUT in 2018

Page 43

B BOROUGHWIDE MEASURES

Measure Action Progress Further information

8 Continue to pursue land use These actions have been completed The new AQAP has involved direct consultation policies within the saved with community groups before the re-write. The UDP and Local Development The approved AQAP for 2018 – 2023 was put result is a more robust, more transparent, more accountable AQAP which is interactive and public Framework to encourage on hold following a change in administration in the May 2018 local elections. facing. Improving air quality in the borough was a travel choice with the aim of top manifesto commitment for the incoming reducing emissions and to An updated AQAP for 2019 – 2024 will be Liberal Democrat administration. The new AQAP ensure that major new taken before Committee in July. This has will reflect changes in air quality policy, creating developments are accessible involved a substantial re-write. This will be an environment that is welcoming to sustainable transport and aimed at the pedestrian and/or to public transport. The LDF beneficial for air quality in LBRuT. will take such policies cyclist, identifying specific bold and brave measures to tackle pollution in local ‘hot-spots’ forward. within the borough and prioritising schools. 11 Throughout 2018 the Council encouraged The Council continues to promote healthier travel Promote the Council Travel the use of Oyster cards for business travel on habits for its staff, including walking, cycling and Plan for the Council public transport and the use of personal using public transport which will help reduce employees emissions. cycles. Cycle facilities on Twickenham

campus include showers and changing . rooms The Council has become a corporate car club member. Parking is only provided for essential car users, usually for 2 days a week. Free parking for all other officers, of

Page 44

Measure Action Progress Further information

all grades, has been abolished.

12 LBRUT strongly supports the TfL In school Support for cycle and scooter training is ongoing Promote Travel Plans for travel plan accreditation scheme – STARS. It and strongly supported by LBRuT. schools rewards schools for their engagement with LBRuT continues to support school travel plans which are part of the Education Strategy through Encourage both public and the school community and for carrying out private sector schools to the development control process. Applications initiatives which result in more pupils and for additional parking permits must be adopt school travel plans staff travelling sustainably to school. accompanied by up to date travel plans. and associated walking and cycling initiatives We provide cycle, pedestrian and scooter It is expected that School travel plans will be training for school children and enjoy a very Set up database to monitor included in the new AQAP 2019- 2024 and target good take-up. driven. progress of all Travel Plans We provide a Junior Citizenship week twice a In 2018 we continued working with several schools, raising awareness for air pollution, year which includes promoting walking, including walking/cycling/scootering low cycling and public transport. pollution routes to school. We assisted and supported the Mayor’s school audit team and match funded a Mayor’s recommendation for a new acoustic fence and green wall at East Sheen Primary School installed in June 2018. This is already recording air quality benefits and helping to protect students from pollution from the South Circular, directly outside their playground. Support to more schools is ongoing and several school streets are planned.

Page 45

Measure Action Progress Further information

16 The Borough continues to promote Sustainable travel choices are promoted through To continue to press for and www.Walkit.com through its website and the planning process. promote travel choice advice from Officers. through improvements for Many ongoing cycle projects to improve cycle Please see measure 4 for cycle and facilities and increase a modal shift towards pedestrians, cyclists and pedestrian improvements. cycling were supported throughout 2018 (Please public transport in terms of see measure 4) increased capacity, In 2019 we will be introducing a borough-wide reliability, accessibility and 20mph speed limit, which will make roads safer quality and more hospitable to walking and cycling. In 2019 we will also see the Quietway from Ham to Richmond Park delivered, and we are working to develop additional strategic cycle routes from Hampton Court Bridge to Kingston Bridge, Kingston Bridge to Twickenham town centre and along the A307 Kew Road. These routes will provide safe, attractive options for cyclists and will connect several key locations within the borough. TfL are currently working to deliver their Cycleway scheme along the A316, running from Cole Park Road to Richmond Circus.

21 Euro emissions on all fleet vehicles are Ongoing. Concern for low emission euro IV or above. vehicles to be used on Council Procurement contracts are currently under business extends to the use of discussion for the renewal of the refuse fleet All contractor vehicle emissions are from April 2020. All contractors will be required vehicles by contractors. The

Page 46

Council seeks to control controlled through procurement. to provide clean, ULEZ compliant vehicles for emissions from contractor’s collections borough wide. vehicles by checking that their environmental policy includes specifically its use of transport. 24 An awareness raising campaign on correct In 2018 (as in 2017) all retail outlets selling fuel or To continue to promote the fuels to burn in smoke control areas was appliances were written to by LBRUT and asked Council’s ‘Smoke Control launched in Feb/March 2017 and was to display posters regarding correct fuel to be Zone’ burnt in smoke control areas. We requested repeated again in January 2018 and employers enlighten employees who could pass January 2019. Guidance is given about information to customers. A campaign was smoke control on the Council’s website. A launched on social media, through e letters to bid was submitted to Defra for a more community groups and on the website. substantial smoke control campaign but All complaints about possible breaches are was unsuccessful. investigated and compliance required.

25 The Council encourages people to avoid Poor air quality due to bonfires may be very To continue to promote bonfires as they cause air pollution and the localised but can cause considerable distress to composting in preference to emissions can be harmful to health or a neighbours and is actively addressed. bonfires nuisance. There is advice for residents on In 2018 the Council banned bonfires on all the Council’s website. th th Council allotments from 30 Apr – 16 Sept each The Council introduced new rules for year. bonfires on all Council allotments from From September 2019 there will be a complete 1/3/17 limiting bonfires from March – ban on bonfires on all Council owned allotments. September to one bonfire a month on one specific morning. Progressively tighter rules have been introduced annually. Composting or Council green waste collection is encouraged as an alternative.

Page 47

26 Annual inspections of premises producing Maintain established benefits of controlling To continue to inspect and industrial emissions. The database of emissions from certain industrial processes enforce clean air requirements premises for control is routinely updated. within the borough identified as ‘Part B’ of the at ‘Part B’ processes in the Regulations. Borough.

28 On-going with support from the Council. Car clubs operate throughout the borough and Support the development and Car free developments have already been are positively endorsed by the Council. Use and use of ‘Car Clubs’ in new secured in the borough through the siting of car club bays is under ongoing scrutiny. If residential developments, by car club bays are proved not to be used their development control process. Future car station interchanges and in space is withdrawn, in agreement with the car free developments will include the use of town centres. club. In 2018 there were 73 car club bays in car clubs. operation.

The Council uses a car club for essential staff car journeys in preference to using pool cars.

C. LOCAL MEASURES Measure Action Progress Further information

29 Refuse planning consent All major planning applications are considered for air Following the elections in May 2018, for activities, which are quality impacts and conditioned for required LBRuT has changed political likely to lead to a mitigation. Section 106 monies are requested. administration. It is hoped that robust significant worsening of air Consideration is also given to the cumulative effect of procedures, via a Supplementary Planning pollution in ‘hot spot’ nearby developments. Document will be in place by Dec 2019 in areas. A draft Air Quality Special Planning Document is line with our new Local Plan

Page 48

Measure Action Progress Further information

awaiting approval.

Biomass and CHP are generally discouraged.

31 To consider ways to further “No engine idling” for taxis and PHV encouraged by Support given to proposals by RFU to reduce the impact of road ad hoc Officer intervention and CEO enforcement on encourage non-car use as part of Travel traffic and parking major match days at RFU during 2018/19. Plan problems on Twickenham RFU days. EVCP required for new conference space for RFU built Idling enforcement by traffic warden in 2018 and robust travel plan. commenced borough wide 1/3/19.

33 On-going discussions with Kew Gardens in 2018 to Summer of 2018 spot checks made by Consider controls for coach ensure continued monitoring of no idling by coaches. Council Officer to ensure driver parking in Kew and compliance with no engine idling policy. Hampton Court, to protect Drivers spoken to by Officer. 100% residents, workers and compliance observed. visitors from the impact of vehicle emissions

Page 49

3. Planning Update and Other New Sources of Emissions

Table K. Planning requirements met by planning applications in the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames in 2018

Number Notes Action

a) Number of planning 96 All major developments are passed to applications where an air the Noise and Air Quality Officers in quality impact Environmental Health for comment. All assessment was major developments are required to reviewed for air quality submit an AQA. London Plan 2018 impacts applied in all cases. b) Number of planning 31 All sites considered on a case by case applications required to basis. If moderate or high risk to monitor for construction receptors, dust monitoring is required dust c) Number of 0 All CHP/biomass not recommended and CHPs/Biomass boilers developers urged to select non refused on air quality combustion/ultra low NOx. grounds Requirements as per London Plan, which meant none could be refused on grounds of AQ in 2018. d) Number of 11 All boilers subject to standard GLA CHPs/Biomass boilers emission conditions subject to GLA emissions limits and/or other restrictions to reduce emissions e) Number of 96 As a minimum all boilers in all developments required developments subject to standard GLA

to install Ultra-Low NOx emission conditions boilers f) Number of All major developments All major developments developments where an AQ Neutral building and/or transport assessments undertaken g) Number of 7 AQ neutral benchmark is often not developments where the challenging enough. Mitigation is AQ Neutral building required due to expected worsening of and/or transport NO2 in an AQMA and regularly results assessments not meeting in hard fought battles. the benchmark and so required to include

Page 50

additional mitigation h) Number of planning 1 S106 frequently requested for local applications with S106 policies. Rarely successful. More robust agreements including AQ SPD has been drafted and will be other requirements to adopted post AQAP. improve air quality Number of planning 0 AQ not a specific CIL requirement. applications with CIL payments that include a contribution to improve air quality i) NRMM: Central Activity Not applicable. Not applicable Zone and Canary Wharf Number of conditions related to NRMM included. Number of developments registered and compliant. Please include confirmation that you have checked that the development has been registered at www.nrmm.london and that all NRMM used on-site is compliant with Stage IIIB of the Directive and/or exemptions to the policy. NRMM: Greater London During 2018 NRMM NRMM is standard planning condition (excluding Central Activity conditions were applied applied to all major developments. We Zone and Canary Wharf) at all major planning have 6 designated Officers based in sites. Number of conditions related LB Merton undertook 7 Merton, who assess all major sites for to NRMM included. Site Audits,1 Site NRMM compliance, visit sites and check Number of developments achieved Self- the NRMM data base on a regular basis. registered and compliant. Compliant status, 5 Please include confirmation sites worked towards that you have checked that and achieved Compliance and 1 Site the development has been failed to achieve registered at Compliance. www.nrmm.london and that . all NRMM used on-site is compliant with Stage IIIA of the Directive and/or exemptions to the policy.

3.1 New or significantly changed industrial or other sources

No new sources identified.

Page 51

Appendix A Details of Monitoring Site QA/QC

A.1 Automatic Monitoring Sites

All data undergoes quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures to ensure that the data obtained are of a high quality.

Each NO2 continuous analyser is automatically calibrated every night and also manually checked and calibrated every two weeks by the contractor, TRL, employed by LBRuT for LSO visits from 1/4/18. There is a need for frequent calibration adjustments as the gradual build-up of dirt within the analyser reduces the response rate. This fall off in response needs appropriate correction, to ensure the recording of the true concentrations. The calibration process involves checking the monitoring accuracy against a known concentration of span gas. The span gas used is nitric oxide and is certified to an accuracy of 5%. Both the automatic and manual calibrations use this same certified span gas (i.e. the automatic overnight one does not use the less accurate permeation tube method).

The NO2 and ozone continuous analysers are serviced every six months by TRL and also audited by NPL every six months as part of the King’s LAQN QA/QC procedure, to ensure optimum data quality.

Teddington (AURN) monitoring station at NPL is part of the AURN and the QA/QC for this station is managed by AEA Technology. For more information go to www.airquality.co.uk/archive/index.php (Defra, 2009d).

PM10 particulates are measured using Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) analysers, with the data presented as the gravimetric equivalent.

No automatic or fortnightly calibrations are carried out on TEOMs. Calibrations are only carried as part of the routine servicing and regular independent audits. The on-going performance of the monitor is checked on-line, by the King’s College London Duty Officer. The role of the LSO at the fortnightly visits is to make more detailed performance checks. The LSO is also on standby at other times, to change the TEOM’s monitoring filter as required, depending on the filter loading.

Since 2009, TEOM data have been improved by routine adjustments, using the volatile correction method (VCM). This corrects for the loss of any volatile mass, which has been driven off by the heat applied in the TEOM’s inlet column. The VCM adjustments are carried out by King’s College London, prior to dissemination of the data.

The TEOM equipment is serviced every six months by TRL and also audited by NPL every six months as part of the King’s LAQN QA/QC procedure, to ensure optimum data quality. Both sites are part of

Page 52

the LAQN and KCL are responsible for the daily data collection, storage, validation and dissemination via the LAQN website (www.londonair.org.uk). KCL ratifies the data periodically, viewing data over longer time periods and using the results from fortnightly checks, equipment services and equipment audits.

A.2 Diffusion Tube Quality Assurance / Quality Control

Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (EC, 2008) sets air quality objectives for NO2 along with other pollutants. Under the Directive, annual mean NO2 concentration data derived from diffusion tube measurements must demonstrate an accuracy of ±25 % to enable comparison with the

NO2 air quality objectives of the Directive.

In order to ensure that NO2 concentrations reported are of a high quality, strict performance criteria need to be met through the execution of QA and QC procedures. A number of factors have been identified as influencing the performance of NO2 diffusion tubes including the laboratory preparing and analysing the tubes, and the tube preparation method (AEA, 2008). QA and QC procedures are therefore an integral feature of any monitoring programme, ensuring that uncertainties in the data are minimised and allowing the best estimate of true concentrations to be determined.

Our NO2 diffusion tubes are analysed for us by Gradko using 50% TEA in acetone method of preparation. Gradko take an active role in developing rigorous QA and QC procedures in order to maintain the highest degree of confidence in their laboratory measurements.

Gradko were involved in the production of the Harmonisation Practical Guidance for NO2 diffusion tubes (AEA, 2008) and have been following the procedures set out in the guidance since January 2009. Since April 2014 Gradko has taken part in a new scheme AIR PT , which combines two long running PT schemes: LGC Standards STACKS PT scheme and HSL WASP PT scheme.

Page 53

This section contains details of Gradko International Ltd’s Results of laboratory precision

- Performance in AIR NO2 PT Scheme (April 2016 – February 2018)

- Summary of Precision Scores for 2016 - 2018

- UKAS schedule of accreditation (January 2019)

Gradko International Ltd is a UKAS accredited laboratory and participates in laboratory performance and proficiency testing schemes. These provide strict performance criteria for participating laboratories to meet, thereby ensuring NO2 concentrations reported are of a high calibre.

Summary of Laboratory Performance in AIR NO2 Proficiency Testing Scheme (April 2017 – February 2019).

Gradko participate in the AIR PT NO2 diffusion tube scheme which uses artificially spiked diffusion tubes to test each participating laboratory’s analytical performance on a quarterly basis. The scheme is designed to help laboratories meet the European Standard. Gradko demonstrated “good” laboratory performance for every month in 2018 for 50% TEA in Acetone.

The laboratory follows the procedures set out in the Harmonisation Practical Guidance and participates in the AIR proficiency-testing (AIR-PT) scheme. Previously to the Air-PT scheme, Gradko participated in the Workplace Analysis Scheme for Proficiency (WASP) for NO2 diffusion tube analysis. Defra and the Devolved Administrations advise that diffusion tubes used for LAQM should be obtained from laboratories that have demonstrated satisfactory performance in the AIR-PT scheme.

Laboratory performance in the AIR-PT is also assessed by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL), alongside laboratory data from the monthly NPL Field Inter-Comparison Exercise carried out at for Gradko at Marylebone Road, central London. A laboratory is assessed and given a ‘z’ score, a score of ± 2 or less indicates satisfactory laboratory performance. Gradko International Ltd’s performance for 2018 is covered by rounds AR019 to AR030 of the AIR-PT scheme. For 2018 the laboratories results were deemed to be good for 111 participating local authorities, satisfactory for 7 and poor for 7 participating local authorities based upon a z score of ≤ ± 2.

In 2018, the tube precision for NO2 Annual Field Inter-Comparison for Gradko International using the 50% TEA in acetone method was ‘good’ for the results of all 8 participating local authorities and poor for no participating local authority.

Page 54

Page 55

2016 - 2018 Summary of Precision Results for Nitrogen Dioxide Diffusion Tube Collocation Studies for Gradko Laboratory 50% TEA in Acetone

Results of study carried out in 2016

Results of study carried out in 2017

Results of study carried out in 2018

Numerical results for this data are contained in the National Bias Adjustment Spreadsheet version 03/19

Gradko is accredited by UKAS for the analysis of NO2 diffusion tubes. It undertakes the analysis of the exposed diffusion tubes by ultra violet spectrophotometry.

Page 56

Page 57

NO2 diffusion tube analysis method

NO2 diffusion tubes are passive monitoring devices. They are made up of a Perspex cylinder, with 2 stainless steel mesh discs, coated with TEA absorbent held inside a polythene cap, which is sealed onto one end of the tube. Diffusion tubes operate on the principle of molecular diffusion, with molecules of a gas diffusing from a region of high concentration (open end of the tube) to a region of low concentration (absorbent end of the tube) (AEA, 2008). NO2 diffuses up the tube because of a concentration gradient and is absorbed by the TEA, which is present on the coated discs in the sealed end of the tube. All Richmond NO2 diffusion tubes are prepared by Gradko using 50% v/v TEA with Acetone as the absorbent.

Page 58

Prior to and after sampling, an opaque polythene cap is placed over the end of the diffusion tube opposite the TEA coated discs to prevent further absorption. The NO2 diffusion tubes are labelled and kept refrigerated in plastic bags prior to and after exposure.

Discussion of Choice of Factor to Use

Diffusion Tube Bias Adjustment Factors from Local Co-location Studies

In 2018 the Borough undertook co-location studies at two continuous NO2 monitoring sites, with 3 x

NO2 diffusion tubes at the following the locations:

 Richmond 1 Castelnau (site 23): a roadside site, in Castlenau Library Barnes. In 2018 the

annual average for the Castelnau diffusion tubes (Nº 23) was 33.63 g m-3; for the continuous site (RI1) it was 31 g m3. The bias adjustment factor is 0.89

 Richmond 2 Barnes Wetlands (site 37): a suburban background site. In 2018 the annual average for the Wetlands diffusion tubes (Nº 37) was 22.03g m-3; for the continuous site (RI2) it was 20.65g m3. The bias adjustment factor is 0.93.  The National bias adjustment factor for Gradko using 50% TEA in acetone for 2018 was 0.92. This factor has been used to bias adjust all roadside sites for 2018. The overall precision and data capture for this co-location study was very good, as it has been over recent years. Following discussion with DEFRA and in order not to attempt to underestimate levels of NO2 throughout the borough for 2018 it was decided to employ the national Gradko bias adjustment factor of 0.92 for all roadside sites, as LBRuT did in 2017. This is slightly more conservative than the local bias adjustment factor of 0.89

Factor from Local Co-location Studies

The local bias adjustment factors for the Borough are provided in Table A.1 for 2012 to 2018. From 2011 to 2016 all kerbside and roadside sites in the Borough are bias adjusted using the factor from the local roadside co-location site at Richmond 1 Castelnau. All background sites in the Borough are bias adjusted using the factor from the local suburban co-location site at the Richmond 2 Barnes Wetlands. This is with the exception of 2014 and 2017. In 2014 the bias adjustment factor was the average of the three static sites in the borough – the third was the Air Quality mobile, which was at the same roadside site for the duration of 2014. In 2017 and 2018 the bias adjustment factor was the national bias adjustment factor for Gradko using the 50% TEA in acetone methodology.

The methodology for calculating the bias adjustment was followed using the guidance on the AEA spreadsheet.

Page 59

Table A.1 2012 to 2018 NO2 diffusion tube bias adjustment factors for the Borough

Source of bias 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 adjustment factor

Local roadside co- location study at 1.06 0.96 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.97 a 0.92 a Richmond 1 Castelnau Local background co-location study 1.04 0.95 1.09 1.00 1.08 1.00 0.93 at Richmond 2

Wetlands Barnes a Gradko national bias adjustment factor 2017 and 2018

A.3 Adjustments to the Ratified Monitoring Data

Short-term to Long-term Data Adjustment

For monitoring sites where data capture is less than 75% of a full calendar year (less than 9 months), the mean of the ‘raw’ concentrations has been “annualised” in accordance with Box 7.10 of the LLAQM Technical Guidance (TG16) before being compared to annual mean objectives. This was necessary at site 33, 43 and 61 in 2018. The Wetland Centre was used as the continuous background site that fulfilled the criteria of TG16 plus the non-automatic diffusion tube background site in Richmond Park. Both background sites were within the London Borough of Richmond network. Both sites had data capture rates of 100% for 2018 - so greater than the 85% required. As two background sites were used the ratio of the Annual mean/Period mean were averaged and applied to each of the three measured concentrations. The full calculations are reproduced in the table L.

Page 60

Table L. Short-Term to Long-Term Monitoring Data Adjustment

PM10 Adjustment Measured mean PM10 concentration for all 3 x LBRuT automatic monitoring sites for 2018 was 15- 21µg/m3 based on data capture rates of 94 - 99%. Since this was above the 75% data capture threshold “annualisation” of data was not necessary. (This is in accordance with the procedure detailed in LLAQM Technical Guidance (TG16)).

Page 61

A.3 Adjustments to the Ratified Monitoring Data

Distance Adjustment

All NO 2 diffusion tube results have been adjusted to represent exposure at the nearest façade. The concentration at the nearest receptor has been estimated using the LAQM NO2 Fall-off with Distance Calculator (Version 4.1) in line with the procedure detailed in LLAQM.TG(16).

The methodology consists of comparing the monitored annual mean NO2 concentrations at a given point against known relationships between NO2 concentrations and the distance from a road source.

The monitored annual mean value used in the calculation is the ‘raw’ value which has not been bias adjusted and the background concentration is derived from the Wetlands background site .

Table K. Distance Adjustment - Monitored Annual Mean NO2 compared to exposure at nearest façade -3)

Measured Distance Background Annual Site ID Address Corrected Conc. mean Conc. Conc.

1 Hampton Court Rd, Hampton 20 44 43

Percy Rd, Hampton (nr. Oldfield 2 20 35 32 Rd) Hampton Rd, Teddington (nr. 4 20 38 29 Bushy Pk Gardens) Kingston Rd, Teddington (nr. 6 20 37 30 Woffington Close)

7 Broad St, Teddington (Boots) 20 49 43

9 Hampton Rd, Twickenham 20 44 39

Twickenham Rd, Twickenham 10 20 44 33 (opp. Fulwell golf course) Percy Rd, Whitton (nr. Percy 11 20 50 35 Way) 12 Hanworth Rd, Whitton 20 48 35 Whitton Rd, Whitton, (opp. 13 20 42 33 rugby ground) Cross Deep, Twickenham (nr 14 20 39 32 Poulett Gardens) Richmond Rd, Twickenham (opp. 15 20 37 34 Marble Hill Pk) St Margarets Rd, St Margarets 16 20 40 36 (nr. Bridge Rd)

17 Red Lion Street, Richmond 20 58 54

Page 62

Lower Mortlake Rd, Richmond 18 20 50 36 (nr. Trinity Rd)

19 Kew Rd, Kew (nr. Walpole Av) 20 45 30

20 Mortlake Rd, Kew (nr. Kent Rd) 20 41 35 Lower Richmond Rd, Mortlake 21 20 55 48 (nr. Kingsway) Castelnau, Barnes (nr. 22 20 49 38 Hammersmith Bridge) Castelnau Library, Barnes (static 23 20 34 30 site) Lonsdale Road, Barnes (nr. 24 20 34 27 Suffolk Rd) 25 URRW, (nr. Sheen School) 20 41 41 URRW, Sheen (nr. Courtland 26 20 39 28 Estate) Queens Rd, Richmond (nr. 27 20 40 31 Russell Walk)

28 Holly Lodge, Richmond Pk 20 19 19 Petersham Rd, Ham (nr. Sandy 29 20 34 34 Lane) 31 A316 (nr. Chudleigh Rd) 20 54 41

32 Kings St, Twickenham 20 61 52

33 Heath Rd, Twickenham 20 57 c 50

34 Thames St, Hampton 20 35 35

35 High St, Hampton Wick 20 45 45 Upper Richmond Road 36 20 68 68 West(URRW), nr Sheen Lane

37 Wetlands, Barnes (static site) 22 22 Richmond Rd, nr. Richmond 39 20 49 44 Bridge, East Twickenham

40 Staines Rd, Twickenham 20 45 33

41 Paradise Rd, Richmond 20 36 30 The Quadrant/Kew Rd, 42 20 79 63 Richmond 43 Hill St, Richmond 20 64 c 57 Sheen Rd, Richmond (near 44 20 43 43 shops)

45 154 High St, Teddington, 20 36 31

Page 63

47 Causeway, Teddington 20 31 30 Stanley Rd, Teddington (junc. 48 20 43 38 Strathmore Rd) 50 URRW, nr. Clifford Av, Sheen 20 56 47 Sheen Lane, Sheen (railway 51 20 35 34 crossing)

52 Clifford Av, Chalkers Corner 20 64 58

Mobile AQ unit, A316 nr Egerton 53 20 47 43 Rd Mortlake Road, adjacent to 54 20 43 40 West Hall Road, Kew Mortlake Road, adjacent to 55 20 45 36 Cemetery Gates,

56 A316 (St Magarets) 20 47 35

57 A316 (Lincoln Avenue) 20 47 36

58 London Road, Twickenham 20 46 35 Whitton Rd, Twickenham (near 59 20 44 40 Twickenham bridge)

60 Waldegrave Rd, Teddington 20 31 28

London Road, Twickenham (near 61 20 47 c 42 Waitrose)

62 High Street, Barnes 20 47 39

63 High Street, Whitton 20 42 36

64 High Street, Hampton Hill 20 49 43

65 York Street, Twickenham 20 60 48

66 South Circular, Kew Green 20 46 43

Petersham Rd opp Poppy 67 20 45 44 Factory,

68 Rocks Lane, SW13. 20 59 57 Uxbridge Rd, nr Longford Cl, 69 20 41 33 TW12 Civic Centre, York St, Rut 01 20 42 42 Twickenham

Rut 02 George Street, Richmond 20 72 61

Page 64

Appendix B Full Monthly Diffusion Tube Results for 2018

Table M. NO2 Diffusion Tube Results

Valid data Valid Annual Mean NO2 capture data Site Annual Annual for capture ID Jan Feb March Apr May June Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec mean – raw mean – bias monitoring 2018 % c d period % a b data adjusted 1 100 100 57.34 57.07 62.17 51.25 20.04 39.30 36.81 38.89 34.50 42.03 46.72 45.69 44 41 2 100 75 34.35 38.31 40.28 33.70 32.11 28.29 41.74 27.52 34.99 35 32 4 100 100 33.59 43.26 45.08 39.75 39.50 39.29 30.53 31.36 33.39 43.54 42.96 37.82 38 35 6 100 100 36.51 43.43 42.12 34.15 40.50 35.77 33.25 26.54 34.59 42.12 45.68 26.92 37 34 7 100 100 48.13 51.17 56.37 42.63 54.46 59.68 49.40 39.10 43.41 51.94 44.80 47.57 49 45 9 100 100 48.09 48.42 49.85 41.60 44.78 41.22 38.79 34.36 37.53 46.45 46.43 47.00 44 40 10 100 100 49.98 50.36 57.25 42.22 43.97 36.93 41.40 36.49 38.77 46.85 45.95 41.50 44 41 11 100 100 44.19 56.36 58.13 43.39 54.94 45.72 48.12 44.20 49.77 55.36 49.05 49.21 50 46 12 100 100 46.31 55.46 54.20 54.14 48.74 49.06 46.04 36.86 43.14 37.71 50.18 51.87 48 44 13 100 100 32.23 45.19 44.37 41.82 47.69 38.81 36.74 32.93 35.38 50.46 52.03 46.92 42 39 14 100 92 35.44 46.57 41.31 39.22 39.27 37.16 32.82 36.38 40.12 44.09 34.96 39 36 15 100 100 40.39 37.82 35.94 34.08 43.19 37.22 38.87 35.90 35.50 38.23 40.60 29.85 37 34 16 100 92 38.19 46.57 46.76 39.99 35.70 33.80 28.66 37.44 42.65 44.27 50.59 40 37 17 100 92 52.24 53.15 56.69 63.44 59.40 61.77 58.81 55.48 60.95 62.23 58.14 58 54 18 100 100 51.57 50.34 60.62 6.26 17.60 57.11 68.54 49.81 62.23 53.41 59.23 59.66 50 46 19 100 83 40.94 51.50 53.91 46.81 42.82 31.71 43.64 40.22 53.09 50.01 45 42 20 100 100 40.54 41.59 49.59 39.81 34.19 35.04 35.23 37.76 40.66 45.95 48.64 47.84 41 38 21 100 92 44.85 57.66 60.85 62.46 56.22 55.51 54.04 41.40 51.80 55.80 61.10 55.66 55 50 22 100 100 45.94 46.11 61.89 51.03 37.21 42.89 44.99 48.16 44.16 56.53 60.62 47.54 49 45 23 100 100 24.71 36.65 40.16 32.06 28.74 28.74 28.37 28.31 28.54 37.87 41.43 34.73 34 31 24 100 100 35.51 38.86 40.18 33.44 31.06 31.34 30.08 27.90 29.73 33.78 36.76 33.90 34 31 25 100 100 40.72 44.48 44.68 41.41 47.45 47.28 39.53 31.34 34.69 42.27 41.62 35.75 41 38

Page 65

26 100 100 38.17 40.96 44.79 38.48 37.77 38.59 32.41 34.02 36.13 40.88 44.10 40.79 39 36 27 100 92 36.29 45.14 43.12 42.00 45.81 32.46 40.34 33.24 43.26 39.89 40.41 40 37 28 100 100 17.43 26.05 27.49 18.12 17.76 15.55 15.15 14.54 15.60 21.39 21.71 21.32 19 18 29 100 100 30.65 41.40 35.92 35.57 31.93 33.10 32.04 26.81 28.33 35.13 40.78 33.83 34 31

31 100 92 44.47 54.12 57.28 62.24 50.86 53.67 47.66 49.75 57.10 54.54 58.32 54 49

32 100 100 47.16 58.19 67.66 64.74 65.77 65.23 68.85 48.45 51.42 66.95 68.88 55.81 61 56

c 33 100 58 42.09 55.58 62.05 55.99 73.41 66.26 40.45 57 52

34 100 92 36.57 40.40 48.66 28.97 33.17 35.65 34.44 28.39 29.34 36.56 36.11 35 32

35 100 100 47.42 51.29 53.58 47.33 39.73 32.66 41.73 45.31 42.89 48.86 46.90 47.53 45 42

36 100 92 68.98 58.76 76.15 61.79 65.67 80.06 62.64 64.73 69.53 76.10 66.80 68 63

37 100 100 19.90 27.75 28.25 18.92 22.73 18.27 18.17 17.04 18.21 24.85 28.67 23.00 22 21

39 100 100 51.63 54.38 58.17 51.18 54.92 48.28 46.32 40.48 46.34 45.39 45.15 43.95 49 45

40 100 83 44.96 53.33 54.67 43.81 51.53 43.98 39.22 37.19 36.60 45.18 45 41

41 100 92 32.31 35.27 37.33 30.13 30.75 34.91 32.14 37.82 36.64 44.37 48.98 36 34

42 100 92 61.03 60.57 84.47 77.10 86.07 76.71 86.12 74.62 85.87 92.13 80.72 79 72

c 43 100 50 58.18 73.61 66.17 55.20 64.64 55.34 64 59

44 100 100 48.83 43.50 48.05 40.74 37.74 45.28 37.55 39.54 39.56 48.03 43.95 47.62 43 40

45 100 100 30.14 38.43 38.99 35.86 32.44 30.67 34.28 32.89 35.11 41.43 39.77 40.79 36 33

47 100 92 29.28 38.47 27.54 32.30 34.07 31.10 27.13 29.93 37.56 32.73 24.05 31 29

48 100 100 44.00 43.92 50.19 40.00 46.05 39.52 41.79 37.37 38.03 46.45 44.16 46.54 43 40

50 100 92 41.92 58.89 60.86 55.75 58.46 56.57 48.58 55.71 64.29 63.40 53.70 56 52

51 100 100 37.82 41.31 36.88 34.09 33.04 30.09 33.39 27.34 31.86 38.99 41.88 38.01 35 33

52 100 100 61.68 63.61 63.37 65.72 64.78 65.22 68.04 52.18 66.43 66.66 59.77 70.58 64 59

53 100 100 37.63 50.43 46.18 51.12 58.40 46.85 49.05 39.65 43.29 50.87 50.90 53.80 47 43 54 100 100 43.16 45.06 47.85 47.01 40.47 37.89 36.33 37.38 38.49 47.12 49.20 46.92 43 40

Page 66

55 100 92 37.27 46.35 50.17 46.84 47.29 42.99 47.42 41.10 36.29 55.84 41.98 45 41

56 100 100 44.08 50.57 56.00 43.17 52.55 52.59 44.90 39.99 45.89 52.21 43.71 40.75 47 43

57 100 92 49.13 43.53 58.01 43.30 49.87 47.30 41.20 39.00 54.68 44.32 46.18 47 43

58 100 92 57.59 47.32 55.96 50.30 39.72 45.89 32.18 40.02 48.32 50.11 43.65 46 43

59 100 100 41.84 50.06 54.35 41.98 52.36 47.91 40.46 35.45 31.04 45.76 43.98 36.84 44 40

60 100 92 26.64 37.43 36.79 32.53 25.05 26.87 24.19 26.76 35.41 36.31 35.98 31 29

c 61 100 58 38.98 52.95 51.05 47.63 43.41 39.33 48.79 47 43

62 100 92 47.04 46.68 52.79 44.61 46.02 48.05 40.44 46.92 62.01 41.07 42.01 47 43

63 100 92 31.60 43.65 47.96 43.89 45.92 35.72 43.75 34.61 38.56 44.73 48.17 42 38

64 100 92 44.23 50.14 51.18 52.87 48.80 47.61 38.66 48.04 60.01 50.28 43.45 49 45

65 100 83 50.10 54.80 66.56 62.56 64.91 58.85 57.54 58.93 70.06 54.65 60 55

66 100 100 43.54 47.24 51.93 45.28 43.48 41.06 48.56 40.07 38.44 52.69 49.72 51.22 46 42

67 100 92 36.54 51.95 49.59 48.12 49.42 46.06 48.92 42.02 41.21 40.27 38.07 45 41

68 100 100 64.81 47.32 58.05 61.46 62.72 57.77 65.43 56.85 64.14 59.95 58.85 55.34 59 55

69 100 83 34.85 43.97 45.92 34.33 34.27 30.36 28.52 54.12 55.45 51.12 41 38 Rut 100 01 100 33.89 40.60 34.58 45.08 48.93 45.00 43.86 39.01 41.42 42.21 44.62 41.86 42 38 Rut 83 02 100 50.68 61.83 72.80 79.50 78.16 90.35 70.38 81.25 65.18 64.94 72 66

-3 Exceedance of the NO2 annual mean AQO of 40 μgm are shown in bold. a data capture for the monitoring period, in cases where monitoring was only carried out for part of the year b data capture for the full calendar year (e.g. if monitoring was carried out for six months the maximum data capture for the full calendar year would be 50%) c Means should be “annualised” in accordance with LLAQM Technical Guidance, if valid data capture is less than 75% d The bias adjustment factor used for all roadside/kerbside sites is 0.92 which is calculated using the National Gradko 50% TEA in acetone adjustment factor for 2018 . The bias adjustment factor for both background sites 28 and 37 is 0.93 calculated using results from Wetlands

For Triplicate sites see below.

Page 67

Triplicate NO2 diffusion tube results for sites 23, 37 and 53 in ug/m3

Annual Site Code Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec mean 23 24.65 35.42 45.38 32.13 28.74 31.33 31.33 31.00 29.00 40.70 42.66 30.31 33.55 23/2 24.75 38.69 36.56 33.31 32.03 26.42 26.42 26.28 28.96 36.13 42.34 37.30 35.38 23/3 24.72 35.85 38.55 30.74 30.98 27.36 27.36 27.65 27.65 36.79 39.27 36.56 31.96 Average 24.71 36.65 40.16 32.06 30.58 28.37 28.37 28.31 28.54 37.87 41.43 34.73 33.63 37 19.91 29.88 27.50 21.08 22.73 18.27 18.40 17.42 17.06 25.84 29.78 22.78 22.55 37/2 18.07 28.54 29.52 21.32 22.62 18.00 18.42 16.82 18.79 25.68 27.92 21.93 22.30 37/3 21.73 24.84 27.73 14.36 19.96 17.33 17.69 16.87 18.77 23.02 28.32 24.31 21.24 Average 19.90 27.75 28.25 18.92 21.77 17.87 18.17 17.04 18.21 24.85 28.67 23.00 22.03 53 41.84 45.48 45.10 55.05 58.40 46.85 47.62 41.13 40.75 48.16 52.16 55.03 48.13 53/2 36.14 49.15 47.27 50.46 57.32 48.98 50.84 40.22 45.05 51.89 53.40 52.57 48.61 53/3 34.90 56.64 46.16 47.84 51.79 51.29 48.70 37.61 44.06 52.56 47.13 43.22 Average 37.63 50.43 46.18 51.12 55.84 49.04 49.05 39.65 43.29 50.87 50.90 53.80 46.65

Page 68